CC_Minutes_2016_0509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 9, 2016 Page 9 Councihnember Willmus stated that he had similar concerns to those expressed by Councilmember McGehee. However, specifically regarding criminal back- ground checks of owners, Councilmember Willmus asked if a rental license would be denied to an owner found to have a criminal background of some sort, but not necessarily related to their ownership of property. Mr. Englund responded that background checks on the owner would only be done if the owner had access to individual units. Mayor Roe sought clarification if that meant only criminal activities related to building management/ownership, and not other issues (e.g. speeding tickets): Mr. Englund clarified that misdemeanor and felony convictions would be high- lighted in background checks; but that no direction was given by the city to those conducting the checks as to the information obtained, with the city only con- cerned that they be performed. Councilinember Willmus asked if staff's research of other cities indicated any giving using background checks for ranges of people. Specific to background checks, Mr. Englund responded that most cities listed managers. Specific to the criminal bacicground check requirement in code, and proposed re- visions, City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the ordinance required that the checks be done, but noted city staff did not review the results, as it didn't want to be the keeper of that information, and only included it as a checiclist item when applying for a license for rentals to ensure rental properties are performing their due diligence. Regarding the results of those background checks, Mr. Gaughan stated city staff was purposely not going to be checking them to avoid any chal- lenges to this portion of the ordinance. Therefore, Mr. Gaughan stated it was his advice to staff to keep it only as a checklist item versus taking action or not taking action on the information resulting from those bacicground checics; and a rental li- cense would be denied if no verification was provided that the background check had been performed. If the ordinance was going to have such a provision, Councilmember Willmus opined that the code needed to be explicit in what the city was after; and while unsure how to word it, stated that this particular phrasing gave him pause. Councilmember McGehee noted a further concern for her is, if a required back- ground check is included in city code, there was an apparent expectation that the city had done something with that information (e.g. sex offender). If this is simp- ly a checklist item in a report for the file and something egregious happens, Councilmember McGehee opined that it created an expectation that the city